A broadly worded
release of liability barred a health club patron’s suit for negligence arising
from an injury sustained while working on a piece of exercise equipment, the
Court of Appeal for this district has ruled.

The plaintiff,
Timothy Grebing, was injured while exercising at a 24 Hour Fitness facility in
La Mirada. He was injured in May 2012 while using a “low row” machine, where
the user sits with legs extended on pads and lifts weights by pulling
a metal handlebar with both hands.

Grebing, an
experienced user of the machine, was injured when the clip, which connects the
handlebar to the cable attached to the weights, failed, causing the handlebar
to break free from the cable and strike him in the forehead, injuring his head,
back, and neck.

The club manager
subsequently acknowledged that the machine had the wrong type of clip, and that
a heavier-duty clip should have been put in place.

In defense of
Grebing’s claims for negligence and products liability, 24 Hour cited two
written agreements between the club and the plaintiff, stating that the company
“will not be liable for any injury” of any kind, “whether related to exercise
or not.”

Grebing argued
on appeal that he had raised triable issues as to whether the release extended
to the defendant’s own negligence; whether 24 Hour was grossly negligent, in
which case the release would not constitute a defense; and whether the company
was liable for products liability, as to which the release would be
unenforceable.

Lavin rejected
all three arguments.

The “clear and
explicit” wording of the agreement, the jurist said, made clear the parties
intent to release 24 Hour from all liability, including for its own negligence,
related to the use of the club and its equipment. He distinguished a 2007 case
holding that a clause referring to “the negligence or other acts of anyone else
using” the health club did not release the club from liability for its own
negligence.

As for gross
negligence, Lavin said, the undisputed evidence—including plaintiff’s own
admission—was that the club and its equipment were regularly inspected and well
maintained.

The jurist also
rejected the products liability claim, writing:

“Because the
undisputed evidence showed that 24 Hour made the low row machine and other
exercise equipment available for use by its members and provided a variety of
other fitness services, the dominant purpose of 24 Hour’s membership
agreement with Grebing was providing fitness services rather than supplying a
product. As such, it cannot be liable based on a claim for products
liability.”